alanschu
Registered User
For what it's worth I missed most of Bourque's career, and have been a huge fan of Lidstrom's.
Hard to argue against Bourque after reading this thread!
Hard to argue against Bourque after reading this thread!
Same with Lidström really. He was a shot-passer. I don't know where we are getting with this. No one will convince the Bourque fans and no one will convince the Lidström fans. It's a dead end. This will just end up with everyone repeating themselves over and over again.
The post I was responding to stated that Lidstrom had a far more accurate shot due to the fact that he was taking far less shots. Which is completely inaccurate
The post I was responding to stated that Lidstrom had a far more accurate shot due to the fact that he was taking far less shots. Which is completely inaccurate
Same with Lidström really. He was a shot-passer. I don't know where we are getting with this. No one will convince the Bourque fans and no one will convince the Lidström fans. It's a dead end. This will just end up with everyone repeating themselves over and over again.
Right, that was a pretty goofy assertion. Bourque might have had the most accurate wristshot from the point ever
I think a lot of posters on this board greatly underestimate Lidstrom, including in comparisons to Bourque, but Bourque's shot from the point is the one skill that he had that is greatly and should be uncontroversially better
I don't know most of the people who voted here. But if I look just at the people who I know as posters from the HOH section and the ATD, it is 51-17 (75%) for Bourque, so it is just 94-73 (56%) among more "casual" or "main board" fans.... interesting.
Naturally, nobody's perfect, not even Nick. But that's the way many experts (including Bowman) described him.
With Lidstrom taking half as many shots as Bourque, his accuracy had to be higher.
70sLord: it's as good of a clutch moment as any. Both players knew what was at stake. But then again, you and I never see eye to eye.
Right, that was a pretty goofy assertion. Bourque might have had the most accurate wristshot from the point ever
I think a lot of posters on this board greatly underestimate Lidstrom, including in comparisons to Bourque, but Bourque's shot from the point is the one skill that he had that is greatly and should be uncontroversially better
Honestly, I don't think many people underestimate Lidstrom at all.
In fact I think more people overestimate him than underestimate him.
I mean if a supposed "Lidstrom hater" like myself still has him as the 4th or 5th (depending on where I have Shore that week ) best D-man in History...I don't see any underestimating going on there no?
Hardyvan123 said:Yes he did get all 4 targets in 4 shots in one of those all star showcases
It's weird but Lidstrom seems to be one of those focal points that people respect but really get upset about if other people rank him higher than they do.
I mean people disagree about alot of things in the history section but Lidstrom seems to get the least respect from people who rank him in the top 10 but not as high as some other (not even including how I treat him).
I can't think of any player who at the same time gets so much respect and yet is nitpicked as much as Lidstrom is.
Maybe with the passing of time and we get some historical perspective some might change their mind but my guess is that it will remain as one of those "weird unexplained things"
I didn't say Lidstrom was better than Bourque offensively. I said he didn't have to be because of his teammates. I said that Lidstrom was better defensively, was a better leader, and in the direst of circumstances with everything on the line he delivered better.
Why was he a better leader? I don't see any reason to believe that was the case - by all accounts Bourque was a tremendous leader, and was put in a position where he had to be a leader at a much younger age than was Lidstrom. Not to take anything away from Lidstrom, but his circumstances were much different. And you're basing your last sentence off of one shoot out attempt that Bourque as a defenceman shouldn't have even been asked to take - talk about not putting your players in a position to succeed...
Lidstrom was given the "A" at 24. Bourque wouldnt have been captain of Detroit over Yzerman.
.
If we assume their dates of birth are the same and both get drafted by the same team, yeah, I think he would have been.
What exactly did Bourque LEAD his Bruins to? What about Team Canada. True, his Avalanche won the Cup (in his second year with them, so it's not like he was some missing piece), but that team was stocked. DRW08 had a good lineup, but far from a favorite that year. Lidstrom's role as captain in that run is indisputable.
Lidstrom lead the 2008 Wings to the Cup, becoming the first Euro captain to do so. He won the Conn Smythe in 2002, overcoming tremendous competition from his teammates.
What exactly did Bourque LEAD his Bruins to? What about Team Canada? True, his Avalanche won the Cup (in his second year with them, so it's not like he was some missing piece), but that team was stocked. DRW08 had a good lineup, but far from a favorite that year. Lidstrom's role as captain in that run is indisputable.
Lidstrom lead the 2008 Wings to the Cup, becoming the first Euro captain to do so. He won the Conn Smythe in 2002, overcoming tremendous competition from his teammates.
No question in my mind that you take Raymond Bourque away from the Bruins and replace him with a lesser defeneseman and that team doesn't have half as much success as it did.
It's not just your mind, it is a fact. The Bruins were a minus team when Bourque was off the ice.
I think the same would apply to Lidstrom. Just not to the same degree. Mostly because of the red wings tremendous depth.
It's not true though. There are many seasons in which Detroit had as good or better GF/GA ratio at ES without Lidstrom than with him. Players like Potvin and Robinson frequently played on similarly good or better teams and this rarely happened to them. Bourque's team was better at ES with him on the ice than without him, until his last 3 years in Boston.
That's why many are balking that he is placed so highly amongst d-men and/or amongst players of all positions. There are other players with much higher peaks, better primes and similarly long careers. It seems like he's the "easy answer" due to counting trophies and Cups, but it's far from settled in the eyes of many. Of course it depends on what each person values. Those who value consistency, Cup/trophy counting and voting (the opinions of others) tend to favor Lidstrom. Those who favor peak/prime dominance and don't penalize players like Bourque for being great on mediocre teams tend not to favor Lidstrom so much. It's somewhat bothersome how Lidstrom almost came out of nowhere to become ranked so highly. That's because he was never considered nearly as dominant at his peak and in his prime as many other players. It's apparently not allowed to point out that he played on perpetually stacked teams and that his competition for the Norris hasn't been so strong the past decade as it was in previous years. What's amazing to me is that so many rank him so highly, seemingly without much second thought, as if it's a given.